Oh yeah, that’s a good way to put it! So ultimately, to say Roman Catholic is to sort of say that only Roman Catholics are real and original Cathcolics? Hmm, but it still has a nice ring to it.
Really?
According to theologian Richard McBrien, Eastern Catholic Churches should not come under the heading “Roman Catholic Church”: “The Catholic Church itself is a communion of local churches, known as dioceses and patriarchates, of Roman and non-Roman Churches.” Thus “to be Catholic—whether Roman/Latin or non-Roman/Latin—is to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and as such an integral part of the Communion of Catholic Churches.” Other writers, such as Kenneth D. Whitehead, disagree with McBrien by objecting to the use of the term “Roman Catholic Church” even for the Catholic Church of the West.
How? You:
I don’t have to.How? You:
Fr. McBrien is not what can be termed a “dissident theologian”. If you have read any of his writings, you know that he “walks the fine line” with regard to Church teachings. It’s not enough to be dissident, although he can stretch a perspective.
- Quoted a dissident theologian, known for his anti-Roman (and anti-Catholic, for that matter) stance, in answer to something the Holy Father himself signed.
Here’s the knife. Do me in.
- Mentioned, rightly, that the Eastern churches in communion with the Holy See are NOT Roman Catholic, but we all know this and no one here claimed otherwise. We were speaking of the Latin rite church, as you well know. Hence, you were responding to a point that was never made in the first place.
Here’s the knife. Do me in again.
- Completely ignored my posting of links to documents signed by the Pontiffs, using the term Roman Catholic, after you had declared such documents to be nonexistent.
How about responding to the direct proof that your earlier statement that the Pope never used the term is a false one?
I knew that you were full of hot air. So much for your declaration that the Pope has never signed a document that referred to the Church as Roman Catholic.I don’t have to.
You along with a few other catholics here at this forum seem to think it is okay to say whatever you want to and not need to be bothered with anything as burdensome as facts in doing so.I don’t have to.
Saint Peter, you may recall was crucified upside-down, upon request, as an act of humility, that he deemed himself unworthy of such a death, as his Master, Rabbi, Savior. This was done within the Roman Empire, under Ceasar, and at the hill, with a name known only to antiquity: Vaticanus. Persecution both against Jews, and Gentiles, persisted some 300 yrs. after St. Peter’s martyrdom; nonetheless, those Jews and Gentiles claiming Jesus as the Messiah gained popularity. The Roman Empire spread its influence into what became known as Briton, where Saint Patrick’s father served as a Roman Senator. As the persecution against Christians lessened, and Christianity became more popular, the vestiges of government, republic in origin, remained around a body politic, which became, increasingly, more Christian and therefore, as schisms occurred, a rite developed for recognition not only of the language, but of the government, which The Church, developed within the walls, among those who persecuted them: Latin is a language ascribed to Jesus and the New Testament, because it was the language of the Empire, wherein they sought salvation, and liberty against persecution. It is known as the Roman Rite by way of its historical survival, and eventual triumph, against and within what oppressed it since the prediction of Jesus’ birth; additionally, it is the government, and “re-inactment”, prevalent within the mass, which became a “standard” to oppose Martin Luther’s reform. As the priest faces the crucifix, and the congregation is standing with the priest, facing the Crucifix, the priest, and the congregation stand, not as Mary Magdalene, or Jesus’ mother, but as the Roman Legion, crucifying an innocent man: whom has, upon an unjust sentence, declared them ignorant and therefore, innocent of a grave sin.
